[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 13 (Wednesday, February 9, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H437-H453]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 418, REAL ID ACT OF 2005
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 71 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 71
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 418) to establish and rapidly implement
regulations for State driver's license and identification
document security standards, to prevent terrorists from
abusing the asylum laws of the United States, to unify
terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and removal,
and to ensure expeditious construction of the San Diego
border fence. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour and 40 minutes, with 40
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; 40
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Government
Reform; and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Homeland Security. After general debate the Committee of the
Whole shall rise without motion. No further consideration of
the bill shall be in order except pursuant to a subsequent
order of the House.
Point of Order
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order.
[[Page H438]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state her point of
order.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 426 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I make a point of order against
consideration of the rule, H. Res. 71.
Line 10 on page 2 of H. Res. 71 states, ``All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived.'' The rule makes in order H.R.
418, the REAL ID Act of 2005, which contains a large unfunded mandate
on State governments in violation of section 425 of the Budget Act.
Section 426 of the Budget Act specifically states that the Rules
Committee may not waive section 425, and therefore this rule violates
section 426.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Texas makes a point of
order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.
In accordance with section 426(b)(2) of the Act, the gentlewoman has
met the threshold burden to identify the specific language in the
resolution on which the point of order is predicated.
Under section 426(b)(4) of the Act, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) each will
control 10 minutes of debate on the question of consideration.
Pursuant to consideration 426(b)(3) of the Act, after that debate,
the Chair will put the question of consideration, to wit: ``Will the
House now consider the resolution?''
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
{time} 1200
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Section 425 of the Budget Act states that a point of order lies
against legislation which imposes an underfunded mandate against State
or local governments more than 62 million per year over 5 years. At the
very least, Mr. Speaker, we have before us today an unfunded mandate
that will cost State governments between $660 million and $780 million
over the next 5 years alone. It has come to my attention that the
National Governors Association is opposed to this legislation for that
very fact.
Specifically, subparagraphs b, c, d, and e of section 202 of H.R. 418
requires State governments to comply with new Federal driver's license
requirements and to verify and store additional personal identification
records, which the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, in its latest
estimate projects to cost $120 million over the next 5 years, but last
estimated costs States $240 million over 5 years. There have been no
substantive changes since last year's to imply that this bill would not
cost the States at least $240 million as estimated by the last
Congress.
The above sections also require States to participate in an
interstate database to share driver information, which CBO estimates
will cost an additional $80 million over 3 years. In addition, by
necessary implication, the bill would require States to develop new
standards for the issuance of birth and death certificates which CBO
has estimated would cost States $460 million over the next 5 years.
There is overwhelming evidence before us today that this bill, which
has bypassed the committee process, denies Members the opportunity to
hear expert testimony on the impact of these sweeping changes or to
determine alternatives to ensure that all of us are on the same page in
the war against terrorism.
The opportunity to determine changes to current law or to offer
amendments to the proposed legislation was not given to us, and it will
impose overwhelming costs on State governments already struggling to
meet the growing costs of local law enforcement's role in securing the
homeland.
Even further, this bill was drafted without any input from the
Governors and State legislatures and even excludes the States from the
standard-setting process despite States' historic roles as the issuers
of driver's licenses and other identification data. We must be in
partnership with our States if we are going to have a real war against
terror in the United States.
For these reasons, the Nationals Governors Association, as I
indicated; the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators;
and the National Conference of State Legislatures all strongly oppose
this legislation in its present form. In a letter issued yesterday, the
National Governors Association, American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators say that they are in opposition to the driver's license
provision in both H.R. 418 and H.R. 368, stating the costs of
implementing such standards and verification procedures for the 220
million driver's licenses by States represents a massive unfunded
mandate. This does not say that in a bipartisan manner reasoned out
through committee process done very quickly that some addressing of
this question cannot be properly answered.
The National Conference of State Legislatures also has voiced strong
opposition, stating that NCSL is opposed to any further Federal
attempts including coercion or direct preemption to usurp State
authority over the driver's license process or diminish the validity or
usefulness of licenses awarded at the State level. NCSL urges the
Federal Government to respect the provisions and intent of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
What we have here today is an assault on federalism in the
legislative process. The point of order is not about whether one agrees
or disagree with the sweeping policy changes of the REAL ID Act. This
point of order is about the farce before us that has trampled States'
rights and inflated the burden on our local governments without their
input.
I urge Members to vote ``no'' on consideration of the resolution and
stand up for the rights of their home States' legislature, Governor,
and local governments, along with the people of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I will perhaps apologize to the gentlewoman from Texas. I had thought
that the minority was well equipped to have a document which I will
enter into the Record from the Congressional Budget Office, a cost
estimate dated February 7, 2005, concerning H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act
of 2005, which is a summary of the issues that the gentlewoman from
Texas is bringing up.
The information that the gentlewoman is referencing is addressed
within this document by the CBO. If I could, I would like to summarize
for the gentlewoman, pending such time as we get her a copy of this,
and I apologize that evidently one has not been provided to her. And I
quote: ``As a result, the additional costs that would be imposed by
H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act of 2005, would not exceed the annual
threshold established in the Unfunded Mandates Act, $62 million in
2005,'' which is the annual adjustment rate for inflation. This bill
authorized appropriations for grants to States and appropriations would
be under that amount. And I would be pleased to make sure that the
gentlewoman has that at this time.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE
H.R. 418--REAL ID Act of 2005
Summary: H.R. 418 would authorize the appropriation of such
sums as necessary for fiscal years 2005 through 2009 for the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to make grants to
states to cover the costs of improving the security of
driver's licenses as required by the bill. The legislation
also would make changes to current immigration law that aim
to prevent the entry of suspected terrorists into the United
States. CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 418 would cost
about $100 million over the 2005-2010 period, assuming
appropriation of the necessary amounts. Enacting the bill
would not affect direct spending or receipts.
H.R. 418 contains several intergovernmental mandates as
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). CBO
estimates that those mandates would impose incremental costs
on state, local, and some tribal governments above what they
will likely spend under current law. CBO estimates that costs
to those governments will total more than $100 million over
the 2005-2009 period under current law. By comparison, we
estimate that such costs would total about $120 million (over
the 2006-2010 period) under H.R. 418. As a result, the
additional costs that would be imposed by H.R. 418 would not
exceed the annual threshold established in UMRA ($62 million
in 2005, adjusted annually for inflation). The bill would
authorize appropriations for grants to states to cover their
costs.
This bill contains no new private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of H.R. 418 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 750
(administration of justice).
[[Page H439]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-----------------------------------------------
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Estimated Authorization Level................................... 0 40 25 25 5 5
Estimated Outlays............................................... 0 40 25 25 5 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis of estimate: The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-458) authorized the
appropriation of such sums as necessary for fiscal years 2005
through 2009 for the Department of Transportation to make
grants to states to cover the costs of improving the security
of driver's licenses as required by that act. H.R. 418 would
repeal those provisions of Public Law 108-458, shift the
responsibility of administering this program from the
Department of Transportation to DHS, and require state and
local governments to comply with more stringent provisions
than under current law. H.R. 418 would authorize the
appropriation of such sums as necessary for fiscal years 2005
through 2009 for DHS to make grants to states to cover the
costs of complying with the bill's provisions.
Requirements for driver's licenses and identification cards
Public Law 108-458 created federal standards for issuing
driver's licenses and identification cards and also imposed
intergovernmental mandates on state, local, and some tribal
governments. That law, however, gave broad authority to the
Department of Transportation to negotiate the specific
requirements of those standards. Based on information from
federal, state, and local agencies, CBO assumes that the
process for a negotiated rulemaking will give state and local
governments the opportunity to help shape federal standards;
those standards are thus likely to be less costly to
implement than the requirements of H.R. 418.
In contrast, the provisions of H.R. 418 are more specific
and likely would go beyond what will be required under
current law. Specifically, state-licensing agencies would be
required to verify the documents presented as proof of
identification, residency, and citizenship status. Many of
the agencies that issue those documents charge a fee for
verification services. Licensing agencies also would have to
upgrade computer systems to verify documents and to digitize
and store electronic copies of all source documents. Finally,
some states that do not currently require background checks
for certain employees would face additional costs to complete
those checks.
CBO estimates that these additional requirements in H.R.
418 would impose costs above those incurred under current
law. Based on information from state representatives, CBO
estimates that DHS would spend about $20 million over the
five-year period to reimburse states for the cost of
complying with the legislation, subject to appropriation of
the necessary amounts.
Driver license agreement
In addition, H.R. 418 would require states to participate
in the Driver License Agreement, an interstate database to
share driver information that was not included in Public Law
108-458. Based on information from the Government
Accountability Office and the American Association of Motor
Vehicle Administrators, CBO estimates that it would cost $80
million over three years to reimburse states for the cost to
establish and maintain the database.
Barriers at U.S.-Mexico border
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration
Responsibility Act provided for the construction of a series
of roads and fences along the U.S.-Mexico border near San
Diego to deter entry of illegal immigrants. All but about
three miles of this barrier have been completed. Since
February 2004, completion of the barrier has been delayed
because of environmental conflicts with the Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA). H.R. 418 would permit DHS to waive
this act and any other laws as necessary to complete
construction of the barrier.
DHS estimates that it has spent about $30 million thus far
on the barrier and that it will cost an additional $32
million to complete the project. The agency has less than $2
million in unspent funds, which are currently being used to
identify acceptable alternative plans to complete the
barrier. In addition, the CZMA already enables the President
under certain circumstances to waive laws as necessary to
complete projects deemed of paramount interest to the United
States.
Other provisions
Finally, CBO estimates that the bill's provisions, designed
to prevent the entry of suspected terrorists into the United
States, would have no significant costs because similar
screening procedures already exist.
Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments:
Procedures for processing and issuing driver's licenses and
identification cards under current law are in the process of
changing due to federal legislation enacted in December 2004.
The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
created federal standards for states to follow in issuing
driver's licenses and identification cards. CBO considers
these standards to be mandates because any driver's licenses
or identification cards issued after that time would be
invalid for federal identification purposes unless they met
those requirements. CBO estimates that those enacted mandates
will impose costs on state, local, and some tribal
governments over the 2005-2009 period totaling more than $100
million and will exceed the annual threshold established in
UMRA ($62 million in 2005, adjusted annually for inflation)
in at least one of those years. Public Law 108-458 also
authorized appropriations for grants to states to cover such
costs.
New mandates with significant additional costs
H.R. 418 would repeal Public Law 108-458 and replace it
with several new and more stringent intergovernmental
mandates for processing and issuing driver's licenses and
identification cards. Based on information from federal
agency and state representatives, CBO estimates that those
mandates would impose incremental costs on state, local, and
some tribal governments above what they will likely spend
under current law. CBO estimates that costs to those
governments will total more than $100 million over the 2005-
2009 period under current law. By comparison, we estimate
that such costs would total about $120 million (over the
2006-2010 period) under H.R. 418. As a result, the additional
costs that would be imposed by H.R. 418 would not exceed the
annual threshold established in UMRA ($62 million in 2005,
adjusted annually for inflation). The bill would authorize
appropriations for grants to states to cover their costs.
Public Law 108-458 created federal standards for issuing
driver's licenses and identification cards and also imposed
intergovernmental mandates on state, local, and some tribal
governments. That law, however, gave broad authority to the
Secretary of the Department of Transportation to negotiate
the specific requirements of those standards. Based on
information from state and local government representatives,
CBO assumes that the process for a negotiated rulemaking will
give state and local governments the opportunity to help
shape federal standards; those standards are thus likely to
be less costly to implement than the requirements of this
bill.
In contrast, the provisions of H.R. 418 are more specific
and likely would go beyond what will be required under
current law. Specifically, state-licensing agencies would be
required to verify with the issuing agency (many that charge
a fee for such verifications) each document presented as
proof of identification, residency, and citizenship
status. Those state agencies also would have to upgrade
computer systems to verify documents and to digitize and
store electronic copies of all source documents. Finally,
certain states that do not currently require background
checks for certain employees would face additional costs
to complete those checks.
CBO estimates that these additional requirements in H.R.
418 would impose costs above those that will be imposed by
the mandates in current law. The incremental additional
costs, however, are unlikely, by themselves, to exceed the
annual threshold established in UMRA in any one year.
Mandates with no significant additional costs
The bill also contains several other intergovernmental
mandates. CBO expects, however, that these requirements would
probably not impose significant additional costs on state,
local, or tribal governments. Specifically, the bill would:
Authorize the Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security to waive any laws necessary to complete construction
of a physical barrier between the United States and Mexico
near San Diego, California, and prohibit any court from
having jurisdiction to hear claims or ordering relief for
damage resulting from the waiver of such laws. This provision
would preempt state authority.
Require states to implement training classes for employees
to identify fraudulent documents; and require documents and
supplies to be securely stored. According to state officials,
it is likely that states currently comply with those
requirements.
Prohibit states from accepting any foreign document, other
than an official passport, for identification purposes for
the issuance of driver's licenses. Currently, at least 10
states accept identification cards issued by foreign
governments, such as the ``matricula consular'' issued by
Mexico. This prohibition would preempt state authority.
Require states to resolve any discrepancies that arise from
verifying Social Security numbers, though the language is
unclear as to what specific actions would be required.
Currently, at least two states prohibit their employees from
enforcing immigration laws, and many of those discrepancies
may be related to immigration. This requirement might preempt
those state laws.
Require that driver's licenses and identification cards be
valid for no more than eight years. Currently two states,
Arizona and Colorado, are valid for longer than eight years.
These provisions would preempt those state laws and impose
two to four years of additional staff costs to reissue the
licenses sooner than expected. Those costs would not be
incurred until eight years after the bill is enacted. In
addition, four other states--Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, and
Wisconsin--issue driver's licenses and identification cards
that are valid for eight years. The bill authorizes the
Secretary to further limit the validity of licenses and these
states, as well as others, may be affected if the Secretary
exercises such authority. This provision would preempt state
authority.
Authorize the Secretary to prescribe the design formats of
driver's licenses and identification cards to protect
national security and allow for clear visual differentiation
between levels and categories of documents.
[[Page H440]]
Such design has traditionally been determined by states and
under current law; any standards developed under the
provisions of Public Law 108-458 may not require a single
design. This provision would preempt state authority.
Other impacts on state and local governments
In addition to the other requirements of the bill, states
would be required to participate in the Driver License
Agreement, an interstate compact to share driver information.
Any costs to state governments would be incurred voluntarily
as a condition of receiving federal assistance.
Estimated impact on the private sector: This bill contains
no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Mark Grabowicz; Impact
on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Melissa Merrell; and
Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), distinguished ranking member of
the full House Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for
yielding me this time.
I would like to join in the point that is being made by the
gentlewoman from Texas to remind all of our friends that when
Republicans took power in 1994, they made a solemn promise to the
States that they would make sure that there would be no imposition of
unfunded mandates on those States, and today we have a chance to redeem
that promise by voting ``no'' on consideration of this rule, which
waives the unfunded mandate requirement.
The majority may, if they have not already, attempt to argue that it
is a minor mandate and show new and improved CBO estimates showing that
the cost of this bill is only $125 million over the next 5 years; and,
therefore, I think this warrants at minimum committee hearings in
markups that has so far been denied this Congress.
So we are not asking a lot this afternoon. And I am impressed by the
Governors Association. Their letter points out that while they commend
the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for their commitment to driver's license
integrity, they find that those bills would impose technological
standards and verification procedures on States, many of which are
beyond the current capacity of even the Federal Government.
Moreover, the cost of implementing such standards and verification
procedures for the 220 million driver's licenses issued by the States
represents a massive unfunded mandate. So they close by urging us to
allow the provisions of the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 to work.
So I commend the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for making
such a very timely and important point of order, and I support her in
it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate and respect the gentleman from
Michigan's joining with the gentlewoman from Texas in bringing this
issue before the House today. I would offer perhaps a different vision
or view of the words that the gentleman has spoken. I believe that the
Republican majority did sponsor the legislation for the Unfunded
Mandates Act; however, I believe at the time that was done, there was a
general understanding that unfunded mandates would have a threshold
that was necessary to be met so that we would have to appropriately
understand those items when we would have an unfunded mandate that
would be necessary for us to understand what we were placing upon the
States or municipalities that we would not then appropriate money to.
The gentleman is at least correct that the Republican majority did
introduce this legislation and pass it. However, the threshold that was
established at that time, now as a result of inflation several years
later, we are aware of, and that is why we have made sure to ask the
question about what we are imposing on States for this very important
issue that is within the jurisdiction of these States, but as a result
of the needs of this great Nation to address driver's license
inconsistencies and the integrity behind those.
We believe it is necessary. So for the gentleman to bring this point
of order with the gentlewoman from Texas, purely appropriate, I would
remind all of my colleagues that we have addressed this issue, that CBO
has been very clear that we do not reach those thresholds which would
trigger this sort of point of order. So I would ask that my colleagues
would pay attention not only to this argument but to understand that we
have not violated any rule as it relates to the unfunded mandate.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I thank my colleague from Texas for his comments. I think I can start
out by saying that we come from a State that is very diligent and as
well very astute on their Members of Congress supporting unfunded
mandates to a burdened and already overworked State budget in a growing
State that would have added responsibilities with this enormous burden
that this REAL ID bill would exercise against it.
Let me just say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), because I
know his commitment to fiscal responsibility, let me refer him back to
the CBO report of 2004. We appreciate the CBO, but we know what
happened; and I think it is more important to know what the impact will
be on the States on the basis of the National Governors Association and
State legislatures. In 2004, on this very same bill, the CBO told what
the numbers would be. It was not under $62 million. In fact, it was $80
million every single year, making it $400 million of unfunded mandates.
What has happened here is that in the new report, our colleagues on the
other side of the aisle have gotten the CBO to, in essence,
underestimate, fudge the numbers by leaving out some of the language in
the bill, but the plan is to still put on the backs and burdens of the
local jurisdictions and State jurisdictions the responsibility of the
birth certificate document. So I beg to differ with my colleague, and I
think that our colleagues should, with their eyes open, vote on this
question.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Texas has politely articulated
something that I believe is misguided and inappropriate.
The Congressional Budget Office is a professional organization that
assists the United States Congress in knowing in a nonpartisan way
those impacts of the laws that we pass, and I have respectfully made
sure that the gentlewoman had a copy and had been advised that before
she came to the floor, evidently, the minority was in possession of
this new document of 2005. And the Committee on Rules, in a meeting
that we had yesterday where we considered this legislation, had to
understand the implications or some of the implications as it related
to this act, and we rely upon the current information that has come
from the Congressional Budget Office.
So I am very disappointed that my colleague has chosen to think that
we have placed pressure upon this professional organization, that we
have fudged the numbers; and I would say to the gentlewoman from Texas
that that, I believe, is not only an unfair accusation to this Member
but, more specifically, to the Congressional Budget Office, which I
believe is a professional organization, delivers a product that they
put their name on and makes available to all who might read it.
{time} 1215
So I respectfully disagree with the gentlewoman, do not accept the
characterization that she has given to this Member or to the
Congressional Budget Office, and would hope that the gentlewoman would
find the time perhaps later in the day to bring this issue up upon full
scrutiny of the documentation to recognize that, in fact, the
professional conduct of the Congressional Budget Office was correct in
their assertion.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my good friend knows we all have the greatest respect
for the CBO, but the CBO analyzes what they
[[Page H441]]
are given. I might invite my colleague to read the CBO estimate, which
clearly states that this is going to cost more than is indicated by
this rule and by the legislation. In fact, it is clear that in
addition, by necessary implication, the bill would require States to
develop new standards for the issuance of birth and death certificates,
which CBO has estimated would cost States $460 billion over the next 5
years.
I would venture to say the competents of the CBO could be put on the
witness stand, and they would attest to the fact that this is what it
was going to cost. So this is not in any way casting aspersions on
their good work. It is what has been presented to them, and they have
analyzed it. It is not an accurate picture, what has been presented to
them this year, because they documented that this is a more than $450
million program.
Mr. Speaker, this violates the rule, and it violates the waiver
where, in essence, the Republicans indicated in their early beginnings
in the majority that they would not allow unfunded mandates to go
forward on this floor. I joined them in that.
I ask my colleagues to support this point of order, so we stand here
united in a bipartisan way not to support an unfunded mandate.
The actual merits of the bill, Mr. Speaker, can be discussed, as my
colleague has said, later on during the day. We are discussing at this
moment the value of this bill. It is excessive. It is burdensome. It is
an unfunded mandate, and it might hamper our war against terrorism and
the protection of our homeland. Let us try to do this in a more
effective way.
Mr. Speaker, I raise my point of order, and ask my colleagues to
support it.
Section 425 of the Budget Act states that a point of order lies
against legislation which imposes an unfunded mandate against State or
local governments more than $62 million per year over 5 years. At the
very least we have before us today an unfunded mandate that will cost
State governments between $660 million and $780 million over the next 5
years alone.
Specifically, subparagraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e) of section 202 of
H.R. 418 require State governments to comply with new Federal driver's
license requirements and to verify and store additional personal
identification records, which the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, in
its latest estimate, projects to cost States $120 million over the next
5 years, but last year estimated cost States $240 million over 5 years.
There have been no substantive changes since last year's estimate to
imply that this bill would not cost the States at least $240 million as
estimated last Congress.
The above sections also require States to participate in an
interstate database to share driver information, which CBO estimates
will cost an additional $80 million over 3 years. In addition, by
necessary implication, the bill would require states to develop new
standards for the issuance of birth and death certificates, which CBO
has estimated would cost States $460 million over the next 5 years.
There is overwhelming evidence before us today that this bill--which
has bypassed the committee process, denying Members the opportunity to
hear expert testimony on the impact of these sweeping changes to
current law or to offer amendments to the proposed legislation--will
impose overwhelming costs on State governments already struggling to
meet the growing costs of local laws enforcement's role in securing the
homeland.
Even further, this bill was drafted without any input from Governors
and State legislatures and even excludes the States from the standard-
setting process despite States' historic roles as issuers of driver's
licenses and other identification data. For these reasons the National
Governors Association, American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators, and the National Conferences of State Legislatures all
strongly oppose this legislation.
In a letter issued yesterday the National Governors Association and
the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators stated their
opposition to the drivers license provisions in both H.R. 418 and H.R.
368, stating:
The cost of implementing such standards and verification
procedures for the 220 million driver's licenses by states
represent a massive unfunded mandate
The National Conference of State Legislatures also has voiced its
strong opposition, stating that:
NCSL is opposed to any further federal attempts including
coersion or direct preemption, to usurp state authority over
the driver's license process or diminish the validity or
usefulness of licenses awarded at the state level. NCSL urges
the federal government to respect the provisions and intent
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
What we have before us today is an assault on federalism and the
legislative process. This point of order is not about whether you agree
or disagree with the sweeping policy changes of the REAL ID Act. This
point of order is about the farce before us that has trampled States'
rights and inflated the burden on our local governments. I urge members
to vote ``no'' on consideration of the resolution and stand up for the
rights of your home States' legislatures, Governors and local
governments.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have had an opportunity to hear from the gentlewoman
from Texas about a document that is old, that contained the best
estimate and work at the time from the Congressional Budget Office. I
have made available to the gentlewoman from Texas and for each and
every Member of this body to see that the Congressional Budget Office
has very clearly talked about the costs that would be associated with
what might be known as an unfunded mandate. We believe, and they have
concurred from the Congressional Budget Office that we are well within
budgetary amounts to where we would not trigger this unfunded mandate
clause.
I think it is important that we do have this law. I am glad we have
debates over how much burden we are placing upon States or
municipalities, but in this case, I would urge my colleagues to
understand that we have the official document that is as of yesterday
by the Congressional Budget Office; and I would ask that they would
support our position, knowing that we have fallen within the rules of
the House.
Mr. Speaker, as a result of this, I would simply say that our
position is, we value and hold and believe we are well within the rules
of the House of Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). All time for debate has
expired. The question is, Shall the House now consider the resolution?
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228,
nays 191, not voting 14, as follows:
=========================== NOTE ===========================
February 9, 2005--On Page H441 the following appeared: The vote
was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas, 225, nays 191
.
The online version should be corrected to read: The vote was
taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas, 228, nays 191 .
========================= END NOTE =========================
[Roll No. 23]
YEAS--228
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
[[Page H442]]
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--191
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--14
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Dicks
Eshoo
Feeney
Hinchey
Jones (NC)
Lipinski
Norwood
Obey
Pence
Schiff
Snyder
Stupak
{time} 1253
Messrs. OWENS, BRADY of Pennsylvania, LARSON of Connecticut,
BUTTERFIELD, BERRY, CUELLAR, Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania, CLAY, TAYLOR
of Mississippi and Mrs. CAPPS changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mrs. MUSGRAVE changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 23, had I been present, I
would have voted ``nay.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes
of debate only.
This general debate rule provides for 1 hour and 40 minutes of
general debate, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary,
40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Government Reform, and 20 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Homeland Security.
It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and
provides that after general debate the Committee of the Whole shall
rise without motion and no further consideration shall be in order
except by subsequent order of the House.
Mr. Speaker, we are here today to begin the debate on fulfilling
Congress's promise to the American people made in the wake of the
tragedy of September 11, 2001, that our government will do everything
it can to protect them from another deadly attack on our homeland. This
promise was made in the days immediately following September 11 when
President Bush committed to the American people that the full force of
American power would be used to bring terrorists and their sponsors to
justice.
This promise was continued by the efforts of the September 11
Commission and the subsequent efforts of Congress to study the
frailties and oversights of our national security system that the 9/11
terrorists were able to identify, exploit and use against us. And this
promise will continue again today through the consideration of the REAL
ID Act of 2005, which has been authored by my good friend, the chairman
of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
This legislation continues the reform mission begun by Congress in
the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act. By implementing the
additional security measures including the REAL ID Act, Congress will
help to ensure that our borders are secure, that terrorists cannot
travel to America, and that the rule of law is respected by those who
come to our Nation.
The narrowly constructed legislation by the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) accomplishes this goal by focusing on four common-
sense areas: implementing much-needed driver's license reform, closing
the asylum loopholes, defending our borders, and strengthening our
deportation laws.
Implementing the driver's license reforms included in H.R. 418 will
provide greater security for the American people because lax standards
and loopholes in the various current State issuance processes allow
terrorists to obtain a driver's license, often multiple drivers'
licenses from different States, and abuse these fake identities for
illegal and harmful purposes. The September 11 hijackers had within
their position at least 15 valid driver's licenses and numerous State-
issued identification cards listing a wide variety of addresses.
These terrorists were able to exploit many of the benefits conferred
upon them by the possession of these cards, such as enabling the bearer
to acquire other corroborating identification documents, transfer funds
to U.S. bank accounts, obtain access to Federal buildings, purchase a
firearm, rent a car or board a plane, just to name a few.
By establishing minimum document and issuance standards for the
Federal acceptance of driver's licenses, requiring applicants to prove
that they are in the country legally, and requiring identification
documents to expire simultaneously with the expiration of lawful entry
status, this legislation will ensure that individuals harboring
malicious intent who have illegally entered or who are unlawfully
present in the United States, cannot have access to these valuable and
sensitive documents.
Closing the asylum loopholes identified by H.R. 418 will provide
greater security for the American people because as the 9/11 Commission
staff report noted, ``A number of terrorists . . . abused the asylum
system.'' By strengthening judges' ability to determine whether asylum-
seekers are truthful and credible, we will be able to prevent future
terrorists from gaming the system by applying for asylum as a means to
avoid deportation after all other recourses for remaining in the United
States have been denied to them. This will prevent abuses to the system
like the case of the ``Blind Sheik'' Abdul Rahman, who was able to stay
in the United States and force an immigration judge to hold a hearing
on the asylum claim only weeks before his followers bombed the World
Trade Center.
Defending our physical borders, as provided for in the Real ID bill,
will provide greater security for the American people. We know from the
9/11 Commission that the hijackers had 25 contacts with consular
officers and 43 contacts with immigration and customs authorities. As a
result, the 9/11
[[Page H443]]
Commission and Congress have recommended and taken a number of
appropriate actions that have made it more difficult for terrorists to
enter the United States through the visa or other legal immigration
process; and this bill will go even further toward attaining that goal.
But closing down only the legal means by which they will try to enter
and infiltrate our country is simply not enough.
Because increased vigilance has made entering the country through
normal, regular channels more difficult, we must also be increasingly
prepared for the certainty that terrorists will try to use illegal,
clandestine methods to enter our country and to do us harm, and we must
now take steps to close those gaps in our border security where we are
most vulnerable.
Finally, strengthening our deportation laws as provided for by H.R.
418 will provide greater security for the American people. Currently,
although it seems unbelievable, not all terrorism-related grounds for
keeping an alien out of the U.S. are also grounds for deportation. This
means that terrorists and their closest advocates can be denied entry
to the United States for their actions in support of terrorism, but if
they are able to make it to our shores, we cannot deport them for those
same actions.
The REAL ID Act would bring some common sense to this troubling
oversight and make the law consistent by providing that all terrorist-
related offenses that make aliens inadmissible would also be grounds
for deportation. It would also provide that any alien contributing
funds to a terrorist organization would also be deportable.
Mr. Speaker, this rule is intended to allow debate to begin on this
important legislation and to give Members an opportunity to come to the
floor and to voice their support or concerns about its contents as the
Committee on Rules finalizes an appropriate rule for consideration of
possible amendments. I encourage all of my colleagues to improve
America's national security by supporting this rule to begin the debate
on this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume, and thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this rule and H.R. 418. The anti-
immigrant provisions contained in this bill are unconscionable. We are
a nation of immigrants, a nation that people, from time immemorial,
have journeyed to for freedom. As Ronald Reagan said, ``America is a
shining light on the hill.'' Well, apparently, Mr. Speaker, today that
light is red.
We find ourselves in the second week of the second month of this
legislative session, and we have yet to have a bill come to the floor
with an open rule. And I remind the majority that that is shutting
America out with reference to this debate.
{time} 1300
We are here today without a final rule because of a lack of agreement
on which amendments to allow. Well, I have a simple solution, one that
should be obvious to all of us. I say, allow all amendments to be
brought to the floor for a full and free debate by the House of
Representatives as envisioned by this Nation's Founding Fathers who
were immigrants. Let Congress work its will on this legislation.
To stifle debate on a bill as ill conceived as H.R. 418 is
undemocratic to the core. Mr. Speaker, there is no reason for
hesitation. This is the only bill of substance on the House's agenda
this week. We have the opportunity to conduct an open debate on each
radical section of this bill. As a country that prides itself on
spreading democracy throughout the world, we must practice what we
preach. Allow the people to have their say by bringing H.R. 418 to the
floor with an open rule. Do not shut America out.
The changes to asylum law contained in H.R. 418 will not improve our
homeland security. Terrorists do not have the right to seek asylum in
our country and are already prohibited from doing so, but those who
would legitimately seek refuge at our shores ought not to be turned
away from our golden door through this bill's misguided attempt at
curbing immigration.
Nor will erosion of our personal privacy improve our security. The
collection of unnecessary personal information by State agencies in an
attempt to discern each and every person's immigration standard goes
against the very freedom this Nation was founded on by immigrants and
must be rejected.
Our Nation's security is of paramount importance; but in an effort to
achieve that goal, let us, a thriving Nation of immigrants, not turn
our backs on our history and our future. So before we replace the
Statue of Liberty's torch with a ``Do Not Enter'' sign, let us
reconsider in the most open of debates what that says about our great
Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Royce).
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule to
provide for consideration of this counterterrorism bill of which I am
an original cosponsor.
This is the REAL ID Act. It closes, among other things, the 3-mile
hole in the fortified U.S.-Mexico border fence near San Diego. Border
security must be a pillar of our national security policy. Recent press
accounts have reported that al Qaeda operatives have joined forces with
alien smuggling rings like MS-13 in order to enter the United States,
particularly through our porous southern border.
This bill establishes strong security standards for the issuance of
driver's licenses that all States must comply with to eliminate weak
links in identity security.
The nineteen 9/11 hijackers had 63 validly issued driver's licenses
and other forms of identification between them, and they were using
these IDs to move around the country undetected, plotting and planning.
In fact, eight of them were even registered to vote. They then used the
bogus licenses that they had to board U.S. planes.
H.R. 418 cracks down on asylum fraud by ensuring all terrorism-
related grounds of inadmissibility are grounds for deportation. The
Blind Sheik, Omar Abdel Rahman, who led a plot to bomb New York City
landmarks, used an asylum application to avoid his deportation. It is a
fact that terrorists have continued to use and abuse asylum laws to
stay in our country.
As the 9/11 Commission found, abusing our asylum law is ``the primary
method,'' in their words, used by terrorist aliens, like the 1993 World
Trade Center bombers Ramzi Yousef and Ahmad Ajaj, to remain in the
United States. Both, in the words of the 9/11 Commission, ``concocted
bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United
States.'' So if we want to make it harder for terrorists like Yousef
and Ajaj to abuse our asylum system, support this counterterrorism
bill.
The ninth circuit created an extremely disturbing precedent that has
made it easier for suspected terrorists to receive asylum. The circuit
has held that if a foreign government harasses an alien because he has
been affiliated with a terrorist group, the alien is eligible for
asylum because he could be persecuted on account of the political
opinion of that terrorist group. Since members of terrorist
organizations are eligible to receive asylum, under this doctrine an
alien could receive asylum expressly because he was an admitted member
of a terrorist organization.
The bill returns the law to its original understanding and overturns
this ninth circuit precedent by requiring that asylum applicants
establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
social group, or political opinion was or will be a central reason for
their claimed persecution.
These are commonsense changes to national security and to border
security.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 4
minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my very
good friend who serves on the Committee on Rules with me.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my deep frustration with the process
being used by the Republican leadership in this House. The bill before
us today radically changes, among other things,
[[Page H444]]
the asylum law of this country. Religious groups, civil rights groups,
human rights groups have all expressed grave concerns with this
legislation.
There are serious and legitimate concerns with this bill, but the
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary did not hold a single
hearing or markup in the 109th Congress. In fact, the bill bypassed the
Committee on the Judiciary completely. Despite the chairman's rhetoric,
there are provisions included in this bill that were never considered
in the last Congress.
The pattern of abuse by the Republican leadership continues
unchecked. Major bills are being rushed to the floor without even a
passing glance by the committee of jurisdiction. Bills are being
brought up without Members getting the chance to read them. Thoughtful
amendments are routinely denied an opportunity even to be debated.
The rule that we are considering right now provides for only general
debate. Later today, the Committee on Rules will meet again on H.R. 418
to decide whether the amendment process will be open or closed.
Yesterday, among several other amendments, our colleagues, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Meek), testified that they believed the asylum provisions in this
bill will make it harder for a persecuted person to gain asylum in the
United States. They have an amendment to strike that language from the
bill, and I hope the House will have an opportunity to consider that
amendment.
Those who gain asylum are legitimately fleeing from persecution in
their home countries. They are fleeing for their lives; but under this
bill, a woman forced by her government to have an abortion who tries to
flee from such oppression will be forced to return to her home country.
I cannot believe that the United States Government would be that cruel
and we would turn our backs on people who need asylum in order to truly
be free from torture and persecution.
Let me be clear. Every one of us wants to make this country safer and
more secure and prevent any further attacks, but this bill is not going
to do it. Asylum already is a highly scrutinized process and is very
difficult to get. By law, terrorists are already barred from gaining
asylum. What we need is better enforcement of the laws we already have,
not a bill that restricts the flow of the persecuted just because a few
in this body either do not like immigrants or feel the need to pander
to political pressures from immigrant haters in their districts.
As I said, there are other amendments that were offered last night in
the Committee on Rules by both Democrats and Republicans, a total of
14. They are all important. They are all relevant to this bill. They
all should be considered.
Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue. For many, it is a life or
death issue. The least we can do is give this bill an open rule. This
is the very least we can do given the lousy process that we have been
shown.
What we should do, however, is send this bill back to committee,
allow the committee to hold hearings and discuss this thoughtfully. Let
us hear from the experts. Let us all understand the impact of this
bill. Let the committee do a markup and send the bill to the full House
for a vote.
We can do better, and I would appeal to my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle to urge their leadership to stop trashing the rules,
procedures, and traditions of this House. No matter what our views are
on this bill, no matter what a person's political party or ideology is,
all of us I hope can agree that the current process undercuts democracy
and diminishes this great House of Representatives.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Blunt), our whip.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, I am here to support the rule and encourage this body to
move forward with legislation that we have already debated many times
in the last Congress and legislation that really solves a problem.
I do suggest that using terms like ``immigrant hater'' does not help
this debate. This is about border security. It is not about those of us
who reach out to help immigrants, particularly those immigrants who are
here legally and lawfully all the time. It is not even about whether
they are disadvantaged by people who are here illegally.
This is about three significant border security issues. One is ID and
clearly ID issued by States is important and significant. The
bipartisan commission that looked into 9/11 dealt specifically with
this issue, something that has been overlooked in much of our debate
now, the almost-sanctified 9/11 Commission. That commission said travel
documents are as important as weapons and urged the Congress to do
something about travel documents that did not reflect the true status
of individuals.
In fact, on September 11, driver's licenses became weapons of mass
destruction.
In the United States today, a driver's license is all it takes to
transfer money to a bank account, to enter a Federal building or other
vulnerable facility, to board a train or an airplane. Lax standards and
loopholes in the current issuance processes allow terrorists to obtain
driver's licenses, often multiple licenses from different States.
In southwest Missouri, where I am from and right in the middle of the
country, of the 1,387 people who were detained by the office there who
were illegally in the country in the year that ended September 30, 50
percent of those people had a state-issued driver's license or state-
issued ID card, not at all difficult to get.
Of the 19 terrorists on 9/11, they had five dozen driver's licenses
between them and used those driver's licenses to get on the planes that
crashed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in
Pennsylvania.
This act would require identity documents to expire at the same time
a visa expires, so that someone who is here on an appropriate 6-month
visa, as, in fact, much to our amazement, some of the 9/11 terrorists
were, are not given a 6-years' driver's license when the documents they
do produce say they can legally be here for 6 months.
This bill also tightens the process of applying for asylum in the
United States to close loopholes in the system that have been taken
advantage of by terrorists. This issue was widely debated on the floor
last year. The example I gave was the terrorist who was here from
Jordan who had bombed an international school in Jordan full of
American kids. Well, that terrorist had not committed a crime in this
country and under the current law was allowed to stay here unsupervised
in a country full of American kids. Certainly that is not acceptable.
That person should have had to have a hearing. This legislation
requires that.
I urge that we adopt the rule and the legislation.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 3
minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), my good
friend, the ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague who ably serves on the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as the Committee on
Rules, for the time.
Mr. Speaker, as the lead conferee on the intelligence reform bill, I
oppose the rule on H.R. 418 and the underlying bill because they will
not make us safer. What H.R. 418 will do is undermine several key
provisions of the Bipartisan Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act, which Congress passed and the President signed into law
just 2 months ago.
Those who claim that the so-called REAL ID Act will enhance national
security are flat wrong. Remember, all of the September 11 hijackers
entered this country with legal immigration documents. Legislation
prohibiting illegal immigrants from obtaining driver's licenses would
not have stopped a single 9/11 hijacker.
We dealt with this issue responsibly in the intelligence reform
legislation. The law establishes tough minimum Federal standards for
driver's licenses so that all driver's licenses have certain key
security features.
{time} 1315
The law also requires the Transportation Security Administration to
set newer standards within 6 months for identification documents which
may be used to board commercial airplanes. These provisions are much
stronger
[[Page H445]]
than what is being proposed by H.R. 418, yet H.R. 418 would repeal
these critical new security upgrades.
Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly agree that if we want to cut down on
illegal immigration, we must improve border security. Just 2 weeks ago,
an astute crane operator at the Port of Los Angeles discovered 32
Chinese stowaways in a container that had just been unloaded from a
Panamanian freighter. The State of California already prohibits illegal
immigrants from getting a driver's license, but that did not discourage
these stowaways from trying to sneak into California and the United
States.
The people at our ports and our borders are our first line of
defense. That is why the Intelligence Reform bill included
authorization for 10,000 new border guards, 40,000 new detention beds
to hold people awaiting deportation, and 4,000 new immigration
inspectors. Yet the President's 2006 budget does not include funding
for any of these new security improvements. If we are going to serious
about border security, we need more resources and more people at the
border.
I urge my colleagues to retain the REAL ID provisions in the
Intelligence Reform bill and reject this imposter. We already have the
tools for securing driver's licenses, and our borders that will truly
make our country safer.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Much has been and will be said about this bill's impact on making it
more difficult for terrorists to get identification to conduct their
terrorist activities and the reform of the asylum laws and the plugging
of the fence south of San Diego. However, there is an issue of public
safety involved in this bill as well.
Yesterday, a criminal complaint was unsealed in the Federal Court in
Chicago which showed that there was a huge scam in getting Wisconsin
driver's licenses for illegal aliens to drive trucks. And in at least
one instance, the case of Nasko Nazov, who is an illegal alien from
Macedonia, 3 days after he obtained this driver's license, he killed
four people, a family of four, in a truck-car accident in Baileyton,
Tennessee.
Now, the criminal complaint says that the scam worked as follows:
Foreign nationals paid sponsors in Chicago up to $2,000 for help in
getting a commercial driver's license. Several Wisconsin residents were
paid a one-time fee for use of their addresses. The clients were
transported from Chicago to Milwaukee via van to banks in Milwaukee,
where they used the Wisconsin addresses to open checking accounts.
After the checks were printed, the clients brought them to the
Division of Motor Vehicles as proof of their residency required to take
their written tests. In Wisconsin, the written tests were given in
English, Spanish, and Russian. People who spoke other languages had to
bring their own interpreters. Some of the interpreters helped the
clients cheat on the tests.
In some cases, the sponsors accompanied the clients to a private
facility that has a contract with the State to conduct road tests.
Employees there accepted payments that ensured that the clients passed
the test whether or not they knew how to drive a truck.
Now, because Wisconsin does not require proof of legal residency in
the United States in order to get a driver's license, whether it is a
regular license or a commercial driver's license, Mr. Nazov got a
license validly issued by the Wisconsin Department of Motor Vehicles,
and 3 days later killed a family of four on a highway in Tennessee with
a truck he did not know how to drive.
Now, legislation like this would have been a key move in preventing
an illegal alien from getting this driver's license, a driver's license
he could not have gotten in the State of Illinois. I think this proves
that there is more involved to this than border security. There is an
issue of public safety. And if you do not believe that, ask the family
of the people who were killed in Tennessee.
Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the story from the Milwaukee
Journal Sentinel entitled ``Tennessee Deaths Bring New Charge.''
Tennessee Deaths Bring New Charge: Trucker Illegally Obtained License
Here
(By Gina Barton)
A man who got a commercial truck driver's license illegally
in Wisconsin killed a family of four on a Tennessee freeway,
then lied about his actions, according to a criminal
compliant unsealed Tuesday in federal court in Chicago.
Nasko Nazov, an illegal immigrant from Macedonia, is
charged with lying to a federal grand jury during an offshoot
of ``Operation Safe Road,'' the federal investigation that
ultimately led to criminal charges against former Illinois
Gov. George Ryan. The investigation also revealed that in
Wisconsin at least 600 people from other states cheated on
written exams, bribed officials administering road tests or
lied about their residency to get truck driver's licenses,
according to court records.
If convicted, Nazov, 45, of Downers Grove, Ill., faces a
maximum penalty of five years in prison, a fine of up to
$500,000 and deportation. He also is wanted in Tennessee on
reckless homicide charges, said Randall Sanborn, spokesman
for the U.S. attorney's office in Chicago.
Nazov--who has never lived in Wisconsin--received a
Wisconsin commercial driver's license on March 4, 2003,
according to court records. Three days later he caused a
fatal wreck on I-81 near Baileyton, Tenn., according to media
reports. Edward Dean Armstrong III; his wife, Melissa; his
10-year-old daughter, Brittany; and his 6-year-old son, Dean,
all were killed. The family was returning home to Virginia
after visiting family in Knoxville, Tenn., according to the
reports. Their 1998 Saturn was stuck in traffic because of an
earlier accident. Nazov, who was driving a tractor-trailer,
first hit a pickup, then plowed into the Armstrongs' car,
shoving it under another large truck.
``We believe there are up to 1,000 suspect licenses, and
this shows the risk inherent in each of those,'' U.S.
Attorney Steve Biskupic said Tuesday.
A Milwaukee investigation parallel to the one in Chicago is
continuing, he said.
Both probes center on foreign nationals. According to court
records in the Chicago case, the scheme worked like this:
The foreign nationals paid sponsors in the Chicago area up
to $2,000 for help getting a commercial driver's license.
Several Wisconsin residents were paid a one-time fee for
use of their addresses.
Clients were transported from Chicago via van to banks in
Milwaukee, where they used the Wisconsin addresses to open
checking accounts.
After the checks were printed, the clients brought them to
the Division of Motor Vehicles as the proof of residency
required to take their written tests.
In Wisconsin, the written tests are given in English,
Spanish or Russian. People who speak other languages must
bring their own interpreters. Some of the interpreters helped
the clients cheat on the tests.
In some cases, the sponsors accompanied the clients to a
private facility that has a contract with the state to
conduct road tests. Employees there accepted payments that
ensured the clients passed their tests, whether or not they
knew how to drive a truck.
The Wisconsin rules for licensing are less strict than
those in Illinois. There, written tests are offered only in
English, and translators are not allowed. Road tests in
Illinois must be conducted at state offices, not private
facilities.
Nazov listed an address in the 4200 block of W. Loomis Road
in Greenfield on his driver's license application, according
to the charging documents. He testified before a grand jury
in June 2004 that he had lived there for a few months with
his girlfriend. He told federal investigators he remembered
only her first name, Julie, and that she has since left the
country. He could not provide them with a description of the
building, according to the documents.
The owner of the building said he had never rented an
apartment to Nazov or to a woman named Julie. The owner also
found letters from the Wisconsin Department of Transportation
addressed to Nazov and four other people at the building,
according to the documents. The owner, who told
investigations he had not authorized anyone to use the
address, has not been charged.
Nazov, who speaks Macedonian, took his written test with
the help of an interpreter, according to court records.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), my very good friend.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank very much my friend from Florida for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, my opposition to H.R. 418 is for two reasons, one that
is broader in the context of the problems we face, and one is specific
to asylum. I am just going to address the former on the issue of
debating essentially an unobjectionable rule that simply allows for
general debate and urge opposition on that ground alone.
The placement of the bill on this agenda at this particular time is a
manifestation of the triumph of ideology over common sense, and it is a
[[Page H446]]
response to spasms of anger rather than a reflection of sober analysis.
Contrary to the arguments of the Republicans, including my friend, the
chairman of the committee, including the majority leader of this House,
the issues of immigration reform, border security, national security,
and public safety are inextricably linked. But we hear not one word or
hint of any intention on the part of the majority in this House, in
contrast with both the President and the leadership in the Senate, of
ever dealing with the fundamental issue.
Our immigration system is broken. The results of that breakdown
endanger American security. Between 8 and 14 million people are in this
country without legal status. They live in our shadows. They utilize
false documents. Their true identity is unknown. For the most part,
they work and pay taxes. And, except for their illegal status, they
observe our laws.
They provide the overwhelming proportion of the workforce in critical
industries. They are located throughout the country and they are
subject to all kinds of exploitation, but for a variety of reasons,
they have no intention of leaving this country. A few among them,
without doubt, a few among them mean harm to Americans and are plotting
terrorist acts. The status quo is simply intolerable.
But where the proponents of this bill are so wrong, so self-
defeating, is in thinking that piecemeal fixes like this have anything
to do with protecting Americans against those who are plotting to harm
us. Only a comprehensive approach that deals with issues like defense,
like a nonforgeable identifier, a nonforgeable Social Security card,
effective enforcement, and coming to terms with the status of the 8 to
14 million people who are working and linked to working and have
committed no other crimes, getting them out of the shadows so we can
know who they are, we can fingerprint them and match them to watch
lists. That is the only way to deal with the problem.
Look at our situation. The majority leader says ``This bill is a
border security bill. It is a Homeland Security bill. Immigration
reform is a completely different subject.''
The chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner), says ``It is to everybody's best interest to separate
out the security questions from the immigration questions.'' But you
cannot. President Bush knows that. He realizes that these gentlemen are
wrong, that this analysis is wrong, that this piecemeal approach is not
going to do the job; and he has repeatedly called for a comprehensive
reform of our immigration system because ``The current system results
in diverting homeland security resources to chasing people who are here
because they want to put food on their table. They take resources away
from catching criminals and terrorists.'' That is the President.
Senator Cornyn, the new chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration
and Claims, no liberal he, realizes that the strategy of the gentleman
from Wisconsin is a mistake. He said it pretty specifically, ``I don't
believe we can deal with border security and homeland security without
dealing with immigration reform.''
Aside from the asylum provisions, I do not have any heartburn about
these, of course, in a world where we have fixed the system so it does
not have 8 to 14 million people here out of status, illegally,
undocumented, and people who should not get driver's licenses. But this
will not solve the problem. There will be people who are not going to
be here legally, who will have driver's licenses after this bill
passes, and there will be people with false IDs after this bill passes;
and you will not have dealt with the fundamental issue.
For that reason, more than any other, although the fundamental change
of the asylum system that is going to keep people fleeing persecution
from finding their historic asylum in this country, without dealing
anything with terrorists who are already eligible for asylum, is
another reason to oppose this bill, and I urge opposition on it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the time
remaining for both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sessions) has 13 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings) has 14 minutes remaining.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in strong support both of this rule and the underlying
bill, the REAL ID Act. I also want to thank the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for his effort in bringing this
legislation to the floor.
All of the reforms contained in the REAL ID Act are crucial to our
national security interests, and all of them will help make America
less vulnerable to terrorist attack. The bill's provisions include
long-overdue and very common-sense safeguards that were recommended
specifically by the 9/11 Commission. Let me point out just one of
those.
``Secure identification should begin in the United States,'' wrote
the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. They went on to say, ``The Federal
Government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates
and sources of identification, such as driver's licenses. Fraud in
identification documents is no longer just a problem of theft. At many
entry points to vulnerable facilities, including gates for boarding
aircraft, sources of identification are the last opportunity to ensure
that people are who they say they are and to check whether they are
terrorists.'' The bipartisan 9-11 Commission called for this
legislation.
Just a moment ago I heard one of my colleagues say this legislation
does not improve upon the bill we passed dealing with the issue just a
few months ago. I beg to disagree. Her point was, it does not address
the issue of those who are here illegally, yet it very much does so. A
provision of this bill pushed by my colleague, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake), for a number of years, provides that a driver's
license may not have an expiration date beyond the date upon which
someone's visa expires. That would specifically go to people here
illegally.
Let me point out how it would have applied to the 9/11 hijackers.
Looking at Nawaf Alhazmi, his visa expired in January of 2001, yet he
got a Florida's driver's license in June of 2001, he got a Virginia ID
card in August of 2001, and he got a reissued Virginia ID card in
September of 2001.
A second hijacker, Hani Hanjour was in the same situation. He was in
violation of his visa when he obtained a Virginia State ID in August of
2001 and a Maryland ID in September of 2001.
These are critical reforms to making America safer. I urge my
colleagues to vote for both the rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2
minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene
Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my classmate and
colleague for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to this
legislation.
It is interesting that we are discussing the driver's license the day
after the President's budget was released that did not fund the border
patrol officers we authorized 2 months ago. Instead of 2,000, the
President only wants to authorize 200 new border officers. We are
attacking the driver's license issue, which seems strange, when we
should be attacking the person who may be getting it.
I always hear that ``Guns don't kill people, people do.'' Well, that
driver's license does not kill anybody. It is the person who does it.
Let us go after that person. And that is what those 2,000 border patrol
officers for the next 2 years are supposed to do.
{time} 1330
You know, building a fence is a good idea. But, again, I think it
ought to be built like other construction projects, subject to
competitive bidding and environmental concerns. There is bound to be a
way we can build a fence that is environmentally safe along the desert
in Southern California.
I have a district in Texas, and I know that we need secure
identification cards that are used like driver's licenses. But we have
one of the largest minority immigrant populations in the
[[Page H447]]
country, and more people immigrate to the United States through Texas
every day. Having secure ID cards not only helps protect our homeland,
but also helps our law enforcement keep our roads safer and enables
them to do a better job. That is why we addressed this issue 2 months
ago and required, under the Intelligence Reform Act, the Department of
Homeland Security to establish standards, guidelines for ID cards.
The REAL ID Act goes far beyond that. That is what I am concerned
about. This legislation even goes beyond this by preventing any form of
judicial review to such waivers.
Our government was founded on checks and balances. And as much as a
Member of Congress would like to eliminate the Supreme Court or the
court system, you can not do it. The Constitution makes sure that we
are equal branches of government.
And, again, I support barriers. I support tightening security. I
support additional border patrol, but attacking driver's licenses is
the wrong effort.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas, (Mr. Gohmert).
Mr. GOHMERT. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I do rise to address support for the rule and the
underlying legislation and, specifically, a few of the allegations that
have been made about this legislation. First of all, there has been an
allegation made that this violates States' rights. Many of us are firm
believers and supporters of States' rights, and the fact is, the States
have the right to give a driver's license to whomever they wish. That
is their State's right.
However, this legislation says, if you are going to use that
identification card to get on transportation that is in interstate
commerce or otherwise, then it is going to have to meet certain minimum
standards. So you have the States' rights. However, this Federal
Government has the obligation to protect its citizens, and it is
something that should not and will not be taken lightly.
As regards another aspect, asylum, we have a situation in which a
legislative body, as it has come to be, that is also known as the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, has enacted legislation that overcomes and
overwhelms a judge's right and ability to judge credibility as it
should. That has to be overcome by this legislative body, trumping that
legislative body called the Ninth Circuit. That is what we are trying
to do.
I have heard friends across the aisle say that Americans have
journeyed freely in the past and that this goes against the very
freedoms which this Nation was founded on. But the truth is, try
getting on an airplane. We do not have freedom anymore. And the more
liberties that we forgo withdrawing at the border, and restricting and
making sure people who are coming in do not mean us harm, then the more
liberties we are going to lose in this country.
So it is important that we make sure we have that water
metaphorically flowing into this lake to give it life, but it is even
more important that we restrict those who would harm us from coming in,
as they would.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to my good
friend from Massachusetts, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would say to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) I have not had
an opportunity to talk to him, and I simply want to point out to him
that all of us that have feelings regarding States' rights line up in
many respects alike. But the gentleman needs to know that the National
Governors Association and the American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators, the National Conference of State Legislators all oppose
this legislation. And the primary reason that they do would be, had I
known the gentleman 20 years ago, or 10 years ago, he would have been
arguing that the Federal Government is sending unfunded mandates to the
States.
Well, welcome to the Federal Government. This is an unfunded mandate.
Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 4 minutes to my very good
friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
(Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, first we have to talk about
the procedure. This is a complicated bill. It includes several
different subjects, asylum, identification, a fence, yet apparently the
majority is contemplating, at most, one amendment.
This is legislation by hostage-taking. You put a whole bunch of
things together, including several that are controversial, so if
Members oppose any one of them, they will be extorted into voting for
the whole package.
We are in the process now, after the election in Iraq, of trying to
persuade the Shiia, who will be in the overwhelming majority, to
practice democracy, not to abuse their majority, but in fact to
encourage members of the minority to participate. It is essential for
us to be able to salvage what is going on in Iraq for there to be an
agreement on the part of the Sunni Muslims to participate.
In other words, we are telling the people of Iraq that to practice
democracy means respect for minority rights.
And here we have the majority in the House of Representatives, a
fairly narrow majority, apparently contemplating forcing an up-or-down
vote on controversial legislation, maybe allowing one amendment,
clearly repressing the strong desire of the minority to be able fully
to debate it. In the end, the majority will decide, but they don't even
want the debate.
And I guess I know, Mr. Speaker, it is a violation to address the TV
audience, and I will not do so. But I will express the hope that if
there are any members of the Iraqi Provisional Assembly watching this,
they understand the message that is very important. Please do not try
this at home. Do not, in the Iraqi assembly, show disrespect for the
rights of the minority.
That is the hallmark of this outrageous procedure. And why are we
doing it?
It is 1:35 on Wednesday. We are going to finish this debate, general
debate and have the rest of the day to do nothing, tomorrow then maybe
debate one or two amendments. There is no reason why.
You know what?
What about an open rule?
What about democracy?
What about bringing a complicated bill to the floor and letting
Members offer amendments and the majority will win.
You are not afraid, apparently, of losing the vote. You are afraid of
losing the argument. And I understand why.
Let me talk now about asylum. This Congress created the United States
Commission on International Religious Freedom in 1998. That commission
just issued a very lengthy report, very critical of the inhumane
aspects of our asylum operation.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the article from the New York
Times, documenting that report at this point.
[From the New York Times, Feb. 8, 2005]
Asylum Seekers Treated Poorly, U.S. Panel Says
(By Nina Bernstein and Marc Santora)
Thousands of people who come to the United States saying
they are seeking refuge from persecution are treated like
criminals while their claims are evaluated--strip-searched,
shackled and often thrown into solitary confinement in local
jails and federal detention centers--a bipartisan federal
commission found in a report to be released today.
The report, by the United States Commission on
International Religious Freedom, an agency created by
Congress in 1998, describes an ad hoc system run by the
Department of Homeland Security that has extreme disparities
in who is released or granted asylum, depending on whether
someone seeks refuge in Texas or New York, comes from Iraq or
Haiti, or is represented by a lawyer.
The New York metropolitan region ranks among the harshest
in terms of the conditions of detention centers, with
constant surveillance, stark quarters and degrading
treatment. Those awaiting a court decision on asylum are also
less likely to be freed. For example, 3.8 percent of asylum
seekers were freed from the detention center in Elizabeth,
N.J., compared with 94 percent in San Antonio. There were 8.4
percent released from the detention center in Queens, while
in Chicago 81 percent were let go.
One of the experts who examined the centers for the
commission, Craig Haney, a psychologist who briefed the
Senate Judiciary Committee on the subject yesterday, said he
was shocked by what he found.
``I was taken aback by the severity of conditions, the
severity of deprivations and, frankly, the expense,'' he said
in an interview. He said that one of 19 centers examined
[[Page H448]]
handled asylum seekers differently from criminals--in Broward
County, Fla., where many seeking refuge are from Cuba and
where former Cuban refugees form a potent political force. At
$83 a day, the Florida center costs less than half the $200
per detainee of the Queens detention center, though both are
run by the same company.
The report said that women and children seeking asylum,
``whose trauma histories and emotional needs may be more
severe and require more specialized training,'' were at
greater risk of harm.
Among other recommendations, the commission urged that a
high-level protector of refugees be appointed to monitor the
system and correct inequities.
Manny Van Pelt, a spokesman for Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, an agency within Homeland Security that oversees
the detention of asylum seekers, defended the system.
``We have a robust inspections program that conducts audits
of our detention facilities nationwide, and our detention
facilities are accredited and subjected to regular inspection
by the U.N. High Commission for Refugees,'' he said in an
interview. ``They are clean and they are safe environments.
Even better, the detention system protects the public.''
The commission had been asked by Congress to examine the
effectiveness of the nation's asylum regulations, created in
part as a response to the 1993 World Trade Center bombings,
in an effort to balance the country's desire to shelter those
suffering from persecution abroad with its need to keep out
criminals and terrorists.
The system, known as expedited removal, requires those
seeking asylum at airports and borders to be sent back
immediately unless they are found to have a ``credible fear''
of persecution when questioned by immigration officers. Those
who pass the test--a vast majority--are then detained until
an immigration judge decides the validity of their claim.
Unless they are released pending a decision, the average
detainee is held for 64 days and a third stay more than 90
days--some even years, the report found.
The number of asylum seekers, and the rate at which they
are freed, have both dropped sharply since the terrorist
attacks of 2001, the study showed. But rates of asylum also
differed sharply by national groups between 2000 and 2004,
with more than 80 percent of Cubans given a permanent right
to stay, along with more than 60 percent of Iraqis. By
contrast, just more than 10 percent of those from Haiti and
fewer than 5 percent of those from EI Salvador were granted
asylum. Detainees represented by lawyers were up to 30 times
more likely to gain asylum, but in some places fewer than
half the detainees had lawyers.
With the exception of the operation at George Bush
Intercontinental Airport in Houston, the report found that
asylum seekers were not pressed to withdraw their asylum
claims before the interview, nor were claims summarily
denied. But it found that judges often wrongly used airport
statements to deny asylum later.
Before the change in the law, only asylum seekers with
criminal records were detained. Now, nearly all are locked up
with ordinary criminals. In 2003, 5,585 men and 1,015 women
seeking asylum were jailed. To cut down on that number, the
commission recommended that the airport interviewers, and not
just immigration judges, be given the authority to grant
asylum on the spot when warranted.
Severe psychological damage is among the effects of
throwing people seeking refuge together with criminals in
``stark conditions,'' the report said, describing 24-hour
lights, chained walks to go eat, no privacy even to use the
toilet and little chance to exercise outdoors. Detainees are
allowed to work but paid $1 a day.
Five of the 19 detention centers examined had mental health
staff, and none had guards trained to work with victims of
torture or repression. In most places the treatment for those
considered suicidal was solitary confinement. A footnote
pointed out that isolation was ``likely to exacerbate
depression,'' not prevent suicide.
``The whole detention system is there to break you down
further,'' one former detainee told interviewers in the
report. ``You are not even allowed to cry. If you do, they
take you to isolation.''
Cut off from the outside world and not allowed incoming
calls, even from a lawyer, the detainees are at high risk for
depression, the commission said, and some even said they gave
up their quest for asylum because of the unbearable
conditions.
Since the 1996 change in immigration law, critics have
complained that the system is subjecting those fleeing
torture and repression to harsh conditions in detention that
can drag on for years. But this is the first bipartisan
examination based on an inside view.
One of the Republican commission members, Michael K. Young,
the president of the University of Utah and an adviser to
President George H. W. Bush, said great pains were taken to
make the two-year effort politically balanced. ``That is one
of the things that gives this report real strength,'' he
said.
Preeta D. Bansal, a Democrat who chaired the commission,
said more research is needed, especially on the reasons for
the sharp drop in asylum seekers. ``We have been told that in
foreign countries the Department of Homeland Security is
being employed to prevent people from even getting on board
airplanes,'' said Ms. Bansal, a former solicitor general of
New York State. ``We think further follow-up needs to be
done.''
The report comes the same week that asylum legislation is
to be introduced in the House by Representative F. James
Sensenbrenner Jr., a Wisconsin Republican and chairman of the
Judiciary Committee. Among other visions, the bill, known as
the Real ID Act, would make it harder for refugees to get
asylum.
So we have a bipartisan Committee on International Religious Freedom
critical of our denial of asylum rights. And what is the response of
the majority? Let us make a bad situation worse.
Mr. Speaker, why not an open amendment procedure so those of us who
have paid attention to this report could offer amendments that embody
it? Why will we not be allowed to offer amendments from this
interreligious commission, and it is an interreligious commission.
I know one of the problems the majority has, and I sympathize, but
apparently somebody has Bowdlerized their Bibles. And I sympathize;
these are people who have Bibles, but their Bibles have big things
missing. For example, we often hear Leviticus quoted on the floor of
the House. Leviticus 19, chapters 33 and 34, ``When an alien lives with
you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must
be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you
were aliens in Egypt.''
Now, that is in Leviticus. I know Leviticus gets turned on and off
here like an electric bulb, but it does now seem to me that kind of
cafeteria approach to religion is something the majority has adopted.
Here we have it in Leviticus. This is undoubtedly why the Catholic
bishops have spoken out against this bill and have asked some of us to
oppose it. But again, religion is to be invoked selectively so
religious values are for another time, not when there is political hay
to be made by taking this popular stance.
What we have is an undemocratic procedure being mobilized to
suppress, even debate, and an opportunity to consider the report of
this commission in the service of a doctrine which would seem to me to
violate some fundamental religious principles. I guess the majority has
the votes to do that if they want to, but they have a day to
reconsider, and I hope perhaps something will change their minds.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), one of the bright new members of the Committee
on Rules.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague on the Committee on
Rules. I rise in full support of the rule and the underlying bill.
I remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who keep
saying, we are not given enough time and we are rushing all of these
complicated issues that we have not discussed, but these provisions I
remind my colleagues, they were in the original bill that we passed on
the House side, the Intel bill. Unfortunately, they were taken out by
the Senate conferees.
We are asking to do the things that the 9/11 Commission, all 10 of
them, in their unanimous report, asked us to do. Listen to this: ``If
terrorist travel options are reduced, they may be forced to rely on
means of interaction which can be more easily monitored and to resort
to travel documents which are more readily detectable.''
The 9/11 Commission Report, page 65, ``All but one of the 9/11
hijackers acquired some form of United States identification document,
some by fraud.'' Acquisition of these forms of identification would
have assisted them in boarding commercial flights, renting cars, and
other necessary activities.
The 9/11 Commission Report, page 390, ``My daughter worked at the
Republican Convention this summer. I worried about her. Unbeknownst to
me, during the convention an illegal alien from Pakistan was picked up
and arrested for attempting to bomb the Herald Square subway station.
She rode on that subway every day going back and forth to work.'' He
was quoted as saying, ``I want at least 1,000 to 2,000 to die in a
single day.'' And that alien had applied for asylum.
Mr. Speaker, these are sensible provisions. We are completing the
work of the Intel bill, and I support it. We need to get it done and we
need bipartisan support.
[[Page H449]]
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) whether
he is on the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I am not on the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia and
I are on the Committee on Rules, and we know this measure did not come
up until 2 hours just before we went in there. We also know there were
no hearings. We also know that the 9/11 Commission went much further
than what the gentleman presented here today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Berman), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, to give a more
exemplary outline of what transpired.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, what I would have asked the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), had he been willing to yield some time, was to
show me where in the 9/11 Report it makes any reference to making any
of the changes in the asylum law that are being proposed by the
majority here in this bill. There is no reference to that whatsoever,
because the 9/11 Commission knew that terrorists and threats to
national security cannot get asylum.
Instead, the majority, because it does not agree with the Commission
on Religious Freedom, because it does not accept fundamental traditions
of people who have a well-founded fear of persecution based on their
political attitudes or their ethnicity or their religion or their
gender, they do not want to make sure they are able to get asylum, they
dump a whole bunch of things that have nothing to do with terrorism in
here, not recommended by the 9/11 Commission Report, and then try to
claim we are simply fulfilling the 9/11 Commission recommendations.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and
H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act of 2005. The 9/11 Commission Report stated
that the abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior
immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support
terrorist activity.
This bill will establish common-sense requirements for proof of
identification for all driver's licenses and State-issued
identification cards. This would stop the abuse of our asylum system by
terrorist aliens and finish construction of a border fence that will
secure one of the most trafficked corridors for illegal aliens and
safeguard the United States Naval base in San Diego, California.
We know that all but one of the 9/11 hijackers acquired some type of
U.S. identification documents. In fact, the 19 hijackers had 63
driver's licenses among them. These licenses assisted the terrorists in
boarding commercial flights, renting cars and other activities
necessary to carry out their horrible plans.
{time} 1345
This legislation ensures that terrorists will not be able to game our
system any longer and we cannot allow mass murderers into our country
any longer.
Mr. Speaker, according to the U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement Agency, more than 3 million illegal aliens came across our
border last year, and I bet probably more than that. We have no idea
where they are or where they are from. However we do know that during
the 9-month period from October, 2003, through June, 2004, over 44,000
non-Mexican aliens were caught trying to cross the northern and
southern U.S. borders. Among these aliens, several hundred were from
the Mideast countries unfriendly to the United States. Without this
legislation, many more will come; and this is a risk we cannot afford
to take.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I gather those unfriendly
nations were like Saudi Arabia where 15 of the 19 hijackers came from.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Hinojosa), who lives in south Texas and is on the Texas-Mexican border
and may have some experiences in this regard.
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 418, the REAL
ID Act. I do come from south Texas, and I was born and raised in the
area, and I can speak to this situation.
The REAL ID Act turns its back on American values. If this act were
to pass, America would no longer be the beacon of hope for individuals
fleeing persecution. Instead, it would block victims of torture and
other forms of persecution from being granted refugee status in the
United States and will deport them into the hands of their persecutors.
The asylum process already includes extensive security checks, and
asylum applicants are checked against data banks with DHS, with FBI,
the State Department, and with the CIA.
Today's Washington Post reports that individuals seeking asylum in
this country are often mistreated and incarcerated with criminals in
the name of security as their cases are being processed. Our national
policy must not be to add to the sufferings of refugees. This
legislation will compound the problem.
This legislation undermines the bipartisan Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Protection Act that we passed just a few months ago. It
deletes security provisions of the Intelligence Reform Act that had the
overwhelming support of both parties, including, one, establishing
minimum standards for driver's licenses and identification cards
necessary to gain access to Federal facilities; two, establishing
identification procedures to board a plane; and, three, mandating a GAO
study on potential weaknesses in the U.S. asylum system.
The REAL ID Act attempts to shift the burden of immigration
enforcement to the States, and immigration is a Federal responsibility.
It is time for us to take that responsibility seriously and pass real
comprehensive immigration reform.
I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I remind my colleagues that there was no hearing with reference to
this matter. There are 43 new Members in the House of Representatives
who have absolutely no opportunity to have voiced themselves regarding
this matter. There is a new Committee on Homeland Security that is now
permanent, rightly so. There was no hearing there. The gentleman from
Wisconsin's (Mr. Sensenbrenner) manager's amendment came to the
Committee on Rules 2 hours before we had an opportunity to see it, and
I would urge in the House how many have read it even at this point.
More importantly, Mr. Speaker, the Immigration and Naturalization
Service, BICE, in the authorized budget that we presented to the
President, it required 800 new officials for that agency. Only 143 are
in the President's budget.
I also include for the Record the National Conference of State
Legislatures' letter in opposition and the National Governors
Association and American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators'
opposition to this measure.
Additionally, there are others who are too numerous to mention
without great prolixity, but I will cite in the Record some of the
organizations that oppose this measure: the AFL-CIO; the American
Jewish Committee; the Anti-Defamation League; the Asian American Legal
Defense and Education Fund; Catholic Charities USA and Catholic
Bishops; Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society; the Irish American Unity
Conference; the Korean American Coalition; the Mexican American Legal
Defense and Educational Fund, and a footnote, all of the colleagues in
the House that are Latino and African American have signed on to a
letter opposing this measure; the National Conference of State
Legislatures that I just mentioned; the National Council of La Raza;
the Service Employees International Union; the Arab-American Anti-
Discrimination Committee. And, Mr. Speaker, the Republican Liberty
Caucus opposes this measure.
And in addition, thereto, in case someone thinks that there are a
whole bunch of left wing crazies that are out
[[Page H450]]
here trying to protect the personal rights of individuals, the
Gunowners of America Association opposes this measure and the American
Conservative Union. I would think, then, that those 100-plus
organizations should give us a lot of food for thought before we
proceed.
Identity Security, Driver's Licenses and State Identification Cards
official policy statement
States traditionally have maintained authority over the
issuance of driver's licenses and state identification cards.
The principal purpose of the driver's license is to certify
individuals to operate a motorized vehicle and to secure
automobile insurance. Driver's licenses also are used for
numerous other purposes, including proof and verification of
identity and as documents to qualify for a variety of
commercial, financial, educational, governmental and other
services. The driver's licensing process and related
regulatory activities are crucial for maintaining public
safety, bolstering security, and reducing fraud and
counterfeiting. States have renewed their scrutiny of
driver's licenses and have enacted and considered legislation
to strengthen application processes, require expanded proof
of identity, modify qualifications for license and
identification card approval, deter fraudulent activity, and
bolster privacy protections.
Although states retain authority over the driver's license
application and issuance processes, Congress recently passed
the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
to overhaul the nation's intelligence systems. This
legislation included federal standards for state issued
driver's licenses and personal identification cards that the
states must enact or face the refusal of federal agencies to
accept these documents for any official purpose. Although
NCSL opposed this federal mandate, NCSL worked with Congress
to ensure that state elected officials are included on a
negotiated rulemaking committee, which will devise the
federal standards, to apply the standards only to newly
issued documents, and to require the Secretary of the
Department of Transportation to identify the cost of the
federal standards on states prior to their implementation.
NCSL is committed to preserving the congressional intent of
the Act by ensuring that state legislatures are represented
on the negotiated rulemaking committee. NCSL strongly
believes that the negotiated standards should provide states
with maximum flexibility within the framework of the federal
Act to implement the standards. NCSL encourages the Secretary
of Transportation to exercise his authority under the Act to
grant states extensions of the effective date if they make
reasonable efforts to comply, and NCSL is committed to
working with Congress and the Secretary to delay the
implementation of the Act if Congress fails to appropriate
funds to implement the standards. NCSL further encourages the
Secretary to exercise his authority under the Act to include
individuals from organizations that represent civil liberties
and privacy interests on the negotiated rulemaking committee.
Although there is a need to strengthen the driver's license
application process and to address inadequacies, states
remain best positioned to accomplish these goals. States have
direct experience with driver's license formatting, identity
verification procedures and systems, customer service,
qualifying and insuring drivers, testing potential and
licensed drivers, and driver training. State laws and
regulations guide these activities. States also are mindful
of needs to protect consumers, taxpayers, business concerns
and privacy, all of which must be taken into account while
enhancing security and public safety. Any federal standards
should be narrowly limited to those areas enumerated in the
federal Act and should in no way limit the ability of states
to innovate to strengthen the integrity of document
verification and issuance.
NCSL supports the innovative efforts at the state level to
address security concerns with driver's license issuance.
Currently, individual states are considering legislative and
regulatory actions, interstate compacts, model legislation,
intergovernmental agreements, data sharing, standards
development through recognized standards-developing entities,
and enhanced legislative and executive branch coordination.
NCSL will provide organizational support to states as they
opt to pursue any or all of these or other avenues to reform.
NCSL will oppose any federal legislative or regulatory effort
to require states to adopt specific model legislation or
participate in an interstate compact.
NCSL believes that the federal government does have a
significant role in assisting states with matters regarding
non-citizens and their qualification for and use of state-
issued driver's licenses and identification cards. States
need direct links to verifiable, timely and accurate date
regarding status, duration of stay, application for change in
status and related information. The expanding number of
visas, backlogs on applications for status changes and
inability to either access or navigate Department of Homeland
Security data systems are among the problems requiring
resolution so that states can administer non-citizen
applications for driver's licenses and identification cards.
Without these changes, states cannot be expected to, nor be
held accountable for, providing enhanced security in their
driver's license application and issuance processes.*
This discussion has rekindled debate and concern about the
development of a national identification card or national
driver's license. NCSL continues to believe that there is no
compelling reason to establish such national cards or
licenses and will work with Congress and federal officials to
ensure that such an establishment is not achieved--either
intentionally or unintentionally--through legislation,
regulation or rulemaking process.
NCSL believes that states must establish am ore cooperative
working relationship on this issue with the federal
government. Therefore, NCSL supports a federal role in
providing technical support, highlighting successful models,
facilitating discussion and providing necessary funding for
changes made at the discretion of the states.
NCSL is opposed to any further federal attempts including
coercion or direct preemption, to usurp state authority over
the driver's license process or diminish the validity or
usefulness of licenses awarded at the state level. NCSL urges
the federal government to respect the provisions and intent
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
____
American Association of
Motor Vehicle Administrators,
February 8, 2005.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Thomas DeLay,
Majority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker, Representative DeLay and Representative
Pelosi: We write to express our opposition to Title II of
H.R. 418, the ``Improved Security For Driver's Licenses and
Personal Identification Cards'' provision, and H.R. 368, the
``Driver's License Security and Modernization Act''. While
Governors and motor vehicle administrators share your concern
for increasing the security and integrity of the driver's
license and state identification processes, we firmly believe
that the driver's license and ID card provisions of the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
offer the best course for meeting those goals.
The ``Driver's Licenses and Personal Identification Cards''
provision in the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 provides a
workable framework for developing meaningful standards to
increase reliability and security of driver's licenses and ID
cards. This framework calls for input from state elected
officials and motor vehicle administrators in the regulatory
process, protects state eligibility criteria, and retains the
flexibility necessary to incorporate best practices from
around the states. We have begun to work with the U.S.
Department of Transportation to develop the minimum
standards, which must be completed in 18 months pursuant to
the Intelligence Reform Act.
We commend Chairman Sensenbrenner and Chairman Davis for
their commitment to driver's license integrity; however, both
H.R. 418 and H.R. 368 would impose technological standards
and verification procedures on states, many of which are
beyond the current capacity of even the federal government.
Moreover, the cost of implementing such standards and
verification procedures for the 220 million driver's licenses
issued by states represents a massive unfunded federal
mandate.
Our states have made great strides since the September 11,
2001 terrorists attacks to enhance the security processes and
requirements for receiving a valid driver's and ID card. The
framework in the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 will allow
us to work cooperatively with the federal government to
develop and implement achievable standards to prevent
document fraud and other illegal activity related to the
issuance of driver's licenses and ID cards.
We urge you to allow the provisions in the Intelligence
Reform Act of 2004 to work. Governors and motor vehicle
administrators are committed to this process because it will
allow us to develop mutually agreed-upon standards that can
truly help create a more secure America.
Sincerely,
Raymond C. Scheppach,
Executive Director, National Governors Association.
Linda R. Lewis,
President and CEO, American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The time of the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the favorite son from San
Dimas, chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, which
will simply allow us to consider general debate, and in 7 minutes we
are going to be up in the Committee on Rules considering a number of
those issues that the gentleman from Florida just raised,
[[Page H451]]
deciding what it is that we will debate here on the House floor
tomorrow. So the process is still ongoing and Members are involved in
that, and it is one that we look forward to considering before too
long.
I want to congratulate the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr.
Sessions) for his very strong commitment to all homeland security
issues, a top priority.
And I will say, Mr. Speaker, that border security is a critically
important aspect of the number one priority that we have at the Federal
level. The five most important words in the middle of the preamble of
the U.S. Constitution are ``provide for the common defense,'' and
securing our borders is a priority, and it should be of any sovereign
nation.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and I had the
privilege of serving as conferees last fall as we sought to implement
the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Unfortunately, our friends
in the other body decided not to include provisions that would provide
guidelines to ensure that the likes of Mohammed Atta who flew a plane
into the World Trade Center just days before he was to appear in court
because of a traffic violation that he had had with a driver's license,
that was something that we felt strongly should have been incorporated
to rectify that in the 9/11 Commission recommendations. Unfortunately,
our colleagues in the other body chose to ignore that.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) worked hard to ensure that we
would be able to complete the 3\1/2\-mile gap through what is known as
Smugglers Gulch, an area that is today devastated environmentally
because people cross the border illegally. Unfortunately, our
colleagues in the other body refused to accept that.
Both of those things were issues that were of concern to the 9/11
Commission; and if we look at the 9/11 Commission report, they make it
very clear that we need to address these kinds of issues as they relate
to border security.
So what we decided, of course, at the end, as we prepare to implement
that, was that we would, as soon as the 109th Congress convened,
proceed with passage of this very important aspect of our border
security and, by virtue of that, our national security. That is why I
think this measure should enjoy strong bipartisan support. This is an
issue that Democrats and Republicans alike can come together on to
ensure that we do, we do, secure our borders. So I think that we have a
wonderful opportunity here to deal with border security.
The issue of immigration reform is another question. I am supporting
this effort on border security in part because I am convinced that we
will be able to, down the road and I hope soon, address the immigration
reform question. I happen to believe that it is important for us to
identify the people who are here in this country illegally. And, yes, I
am opposed to granting blanket amnesty, as is President Bush, but I do
believe that moving in the direction of some sort of worker program is
something that we must look at and must address. But we are taking a
proper step in finally doing what we wanted to have incorporated in the
9/11 Commission package that we passed out of here, and I congratulate
all my colleagues who have been involved in this.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule on H.R.
418.
Our Nation's immigration policy has been of top concern in recent
years, and for good reason. With between eight and twelve million
illegal aliens in the United States, it is obviously a problem out of
control.
We need to increase border security and fix our immigration laws. We
need a system that will encourage well-intentioned, contributing aliens
out of the shadows and allow them to pay a reasonable penalty so they
can come into compliance with the law.
Americans are rightly concerned about the security and the integrity
of the Nation's borders because the system is broken. Some are
concerned about the possibility of terrorists crossing our borders and
coming into our cities.
But we cannot effectively fight terrorism if we fail to make the
distinction between them and busboys and housekeepers.
From 1990 to 2000, the number of U.S. Border Patrol agents nearly
tripled, but illegal immigration increased by as much as 5.5 million.
Increasing enforcement resources to keep out willing immigrant
workers, as we did throughout the 1990s, has not worked. It has failed,
and we need enforcement to be much more narrowly focused on criminals
and potential terrorists.
Today, we are considering H.R. 418. This legislation begins the
debate on the enforcement aspects of immigration and addresses the
narrow issue of driver license security.
I have reservations about the gradual move toward what could become a
National ID card, but this legislation begins to address issues
necessary to focus efforts in enforcement.
Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote in favor of H.R. 418, but while doing
so, I suggest that enforcement, border security and immigration reform
must be worked on together.
In fact, fixing the broken system requires a broader strategy that
includes both enforcement and the creation of adequate legal channels
for immigration that serve the Nation's interests.
By creating legal channels for those looking for a better life and
looking to fill jobs that Americans will not fill, we enhance our
enforcement efforts. The responsible authorities can focus their
resources first on the worst actors.
Our immigration laws and policies must reflect the realities we face
today. Our economy demands workers, but our national security demands
that we identify those lurking in the shadows.
Enhanced enforcement must be the top priority for immigration policy.
The American people are not anti-immigrant. We are concerned about
the lack of coherence in our immigration policy and enforcement.
As part of today's debate, we must realize that the Congress needs to
address the other issues with immigration reform now.
Broader immigration reform has been outlined by President Bush. I
commend him for his act of leadership.
He has outlined the solution and now Congress must act quickly in
crafting legislation. This bill is our first step in a long journey to
restore public confidence in an open, welcoming immigration code.
Let Us Give Thanks to Our Immigrants
[From the Wall Street Journal, Nov. 24, 2004]
(By Rupert Murdoch)
When B.C. Forbes sailed for America from Scotland in 1904,
he was following a course well worn by generations of Scots.
I know how the founder of Forbes magazine must have felt.
The Murdochs originally hail from the same part of Scotland.
Today, we are part of the most recent wave of immigrants
attracted by the bright beacon of American liberty.
These days, it's not always easy to talk about the benefits
of immigration. Especially since 9/11, many Americans worry
about borders and security. These are legitimate concerns.
But surely a nation as great as America has the wit and
resources to distinguish between those who come here to
destroy the American Dream--and the many millions more who
come to live it.
The evidence of the contributions these immigrants make to
our society is all around us--especially in the critical area
of education. Adam Smith, another Scotsman, knew that without
a decent system of education, a modem capitalist society was
committing suicide. Well, our modern public school systems
simply are not producing the talent the American economy
needs to compete in the future. And it often seems that it is
our immigrants who are holding the whole thing up.
In a study on high school students released this past
summer, the National Foundation for American Policy found 60
percent of the top science students, and 65 percent of the
top math students, are children of immigrants. The same study
found that seven of the top award winners at the 2004 Intel
Science Talent Search were immigrants or children of
immigrants. This correlates with other findings that more
than half of engineers--and 45 percent of math and computer
scientists--with Ph.D.s now working in the U.S. are foreign
born.
It's not just the statistics. You see it at our most elite
college and university campuses, where Asian immigrants or
their children are disproportionately represented. And a
recent study of 28 prestigious American universities by
researchers from Princeton and the University of Pennsylvania
found something startling: that 41 percent of the black
students attending these schools described themselves as
either immigrants or children of immigrants.
The point is that by almost any measure of educational
excellence you choose, if you're in America you're going to
find immigrants or their children at the top. I don't just
mean engineers and scientists and technicians. In my book,
anyone who comes here and gives an honest day's work for an
honest day's pay is not only putting himself closer to the
American Dream, he's helping the rest of us get there too.
As Ronald Reagan said at the Statue of Liberty, ``While we
applaud those immigrants who stand out, whose contributions
are easily discerned, we know that America's heroes are also
those whose names are remembered by only a few.''
Let me share some of these names with you.
[[Page H452]]
Start with Eddie Chin, an ethnic Chinese Marine who was
born a week after his family fled Burma. You've all seen Cpl.
Chin. Because when Baghdad fell, he was the Marine we all
watched shimmy up the statue of Saddam Hussein to attach the
cable that would pull it down.
Or Lance Cpl. Ahmad Ibrahim. His family came to the U.S.
from Syria when the first Gulf War broke out. Now Cpl.
Ibrahim hopes to be deployed to Iraq--also as a Marine--to
put his Arabic language skills in the service of Corps and
Country.
Or what about Cpl. Jose Gutierrez, who was raised in
Guatemala and came to America as a boy--illegally! Cpl.
Gutierrez was one of the first Marines killed in action in
Iraq. As his family told reporters, this young immigrant
enlisted with the Marine Corps because he wanted to ``give
back'' to America.
So here we have it--Asian Marines, Arab Marines, Latino
Marines--all united in the mission of protecting the rest of
us. Isn't this what Reagan meant when he said that the bond
that ties our immigrants together--what makes us a nation
instead of a collection of individuals--is ``an abiding love
of liberty''? So the next time you hear people whining about
what a ``drain'' on America our immigrants are, it might be
worth asking if they consider these Marines a drain.
Maybe this is more clear to businessmen because of what we
see every day. My company, News Corporation, is a
multinational company based in America. Our diversity is
based on talent, cooperation and ability.
Frankly it doesn't bother me in the least that millions of
people are attracted to our shores. What we should worry
about is the day they no longer find these shores attractive.
In an era when too many of our pundits declare that the
American Dream is a fraud, it is America's immigrants who
remind us--by dint of their success--that the Dream is alive,
and well within reach of anyone willing to work for it.
We are fortunate to have a president who understands that.
Only a few days ago, the White House indicated that it
intended to revive an immigration reform which the president
had first offered before 9/11 and tried to revive back in
January.
Politically speaking, a guest-worker plan is no easy thing.
But as President Bush realizes, we'll never fix the problem
of illegal immigration simply by throwing up walls and trying
to make all of us police them. We've tried that for a decade
or so now, and it's been a flop. What we need to do first is
to make it easier for those who seek honest work to do so
without having to disobey our laws. Fundamentally that means
recognizing that an economy as powerful as ours is always
going to have a demand for more workers.
Such a policy would benefit us all: It would help those who
want nothing more than to work legally move out of the
shadows. It would help our security forces stop wasting
resources now spent on hunting down Mexican waitresses and
start devoting them to tracking the terrorists who really
threaten us. It would help the economy by providing America
with the labor and talent it needs.
Given the tremendous pressures on President Bush and the
considerable opposition from within his own ranks, the
politically expedient thing for him to do would be to drop
it. But he hasn't, and I for one am encouraged by his refusal
to give in.
The immigrant editor B.C. Forbes spent much of the 20th
century championing the glories of American opportunity. We
who have arrived more recently likewise will never forget our
debt we owe to this land--and the obligation to keep that
same opportunity alive in the 21st.
Mr. Murdoch is chairman and chief executive of News
Corporation. This is adapted from a speech he gave last
Thursday, in acceptance of the 2004 B.C. Forbes Award.
____
[From the Orlando Sentinel, Jan. 2, 2005]
Immigration Reform: A 3-Legged Stool
(By Bishop Thomas Wenski)
While not a major theme of last fall's campaign, a debate
on immigration reform will be front and center in the early
days of the new Bush administration. Early last year,
President Bush acknowledged that our immigration system is
broken and needs to be fixed. For this he deserves credit.
Recognizing that there is a problem is a critical first step
toward finding a solution.
In the past 10 years, more than $20 billion has been spent
on adding Border Patrol agents, building fencing and
employing technology to prevent border crossings. During
roughly the same period, however, estimates on the net number
of undocumented entering the country have risen from about
300,000 per year to about 500,000 per year. More disturbing
is that, in the past five years, more than 2,000 migrants
have lost their lives perishing in remote portions of the
American Southwest.
And yet those who survive the gauntlet of a dangerous
border crossing find work in short order. Our economy needs
their manpower: the Labor Department projects that, by the
year 2008, there will be 6 million more low-skilled jobs
available than Americans able to fill them. At the same time,
these workers contribute billions to the tax and Social
Security systems.
Truth be told, our current system, instead of discouraging
undocumented migration, makes it inevitable because adequate
provisions in law do not exist to match up willing workers
from other countries with unfilled jobs here. Work visas for
unskilled workers are absurdly small compared to the demand--
5,000 in the permanent system and up to 66,000 in the
temporary one. Family-unity visas can be even scarcer, with
waiting times as long as 10 years for Mexican families to be
reunited with a relative who is a U.S. citizen or legal
resident.
We need immigration reform legislation with three major
components, akin to a three-legged stool. The administration
plan proposed last January addresses only one leg--
employment--which is insufficient to support the weight on
the system.
First, any new proposal should feature means for
undocumented long-term residents to access permanent
residency. Legalization does not necessarily mean amnesty. It
can be conditioned on any number of criteria including--for
example, ``sweat equity'' the undocumented have already
accrued through their work in the United States. Such a legal
remedy would stabilize both immigrant families and the labor
force.
Second, it should reform the employment-based legal
immigration system in a way that increases legal avenues to
work while protecting the rights of both foreign-born and
U.S. workers. This would permit future flows of workers to
enter safely and legally and reduce deaths at the border.
Third, the plan should shorten waiting times under the
family reunification system. Too often, our current system
separates husbands from wives and parents from children, a
morally unacceptable outcome in a nation built upon the
strength of the family.
Anti-immigrant polemicists ignore the human tragedy and
familial dislocation enabled by the status quo, while
discounting the invaluable contributions immigrants make to
our nation. Americans are, as a whole, fair-minded people. We
cannot continue to accept the benefits of undocumented
laborers but be unwilling to extend to them the protection of
the law. The undocumented are not ``breaking'' the law as
much as they are being ``broken'' by the law.
After our country's unhappy experience with Jim Crow
``laws'' that resulted in the creation of a large black
underc1ass, we should not repeat the same mistake in
tolerating the creation of a large immigrant underc1ass by
not affording legal remedies that would afford them the
protection of law and the opportunity for upward mobility.
We applaud the president for recognizing how the present
immigration regime hurts both Americans and undocumented
immigrants in America. The new Congress should work with
President Bush to enact a comprehensive solution to our
immigration crisis. Only such a ``three-legged''
comprehensive approach will protect human rights and prepare
our nation for the challenges of the future.
____
[From the Sun-Sentinel, Jan. 9, 2005]
For Doable Policy
Resolving the dilemma posed by many millions of
``undocumented'' workers in America requires compromise that
few will find completely satisfying. Temporary work permits
will please neither those who want all illegal immigrants
deported nor those who want another round of amnesty.
Amnesty is politically untenable, and deporting millions of
people is not doable. It would require enormous amounts of
money and manpower from a government that is already strapped
to meet current social obligations and international
commitments.
President Bush told reporters recently that he wants U.S.
Border Patrol agents chasing ``crooks and thieves and drug-
runners and terrorists, not good-hearted people who are
coming here to work.'' The president is seeking levelheaded
immigration legislation that could improve domestic security
and put policy in line with the needs of the globalized
American economy.
The most sensible approach would offer legitimacy to those
who have worked diligently in America, while imposing and
enforcing tough employer sanctions against companies that
continue to employ undocumented workers. This would weaken
the so-called magnet effect that lures otherwise law-abiding
people to jump the border.
Such a policy requires several key provisions. One would
obligate illegal immigrants to come out of the shadows to
prove their identities in return for some form of legitimate
status.
This type of trade-off serves U.S. interests by identifying
those who are here ``to work,'' as the president has said.
Bringing them out of the woodwork would allow law enforcement
agents to focus more sharply on catching those who are here
to do harm.
A reform bill should take into account the brainpower needs
of the U.S. economy. There are untold numbers of people
around the world who are standing in line to legally enter
the United States, and many of these would-be immigrants
possess skills that American employers need.
Since the Sept. 11 attacks, this process has become
cumbersome and counterproductive. Immigration reform should
streamline the process for granting skilled foreigners access
to the United States, particularly those well-suited for
workplaces that have a tough time finding qualified hands.
There's no reason the United States can't have a policy
that promotes safety while meeting the needs of the
workplace.
Congress and the White House can find suitable resolutions
to the security, social and labor quandaries posed by
immigration if prejudices and stigmas are shoved aside in
[[Page H453]]
favor of rational proposals that bolster U.S. security and
global competitiveness.
Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, the REAL ID Act completes the mission of the
9/11 Commission recommendations by implementing common sense reforms to
strengthen our borders security and better protect our homeland.
Implementing Much Needed Driver's License Reforms
Driver's licenses have become the primary identification document in
the United States, enabling individuals to get other identity
documents, transfer funds to a U.S. bank account, obtain access to
federal buildings and other vulnerable facilities, purchase a firearm,
rent a car and board a plane.
Lax standards and loopholes in the current issuance processes allow
terrorists to obtain driver's licenses--often multiple licenses from
different states--and abuse the license for identification purposes.
The Sept 11th hijackers had, within their possession, at least 15
valid drivers licenses and numerous State issued identity cards with a
large variety of addresses.
Identification documents are the last opportunity to ensure that
people are who they say they are and to check whether they are
terrorists.
The REAL ID Act would require applicants to provide proof they are in
the country legally. Currently, eleven states do not have such a
requirement, meaning a majority of states have already recognized the
need for tighter standards, but unnecessary and dangerous gaps in the
system still exist.
The REAL ID Act would require identity documents to expire at the
same time as the expiration of lawful entry status, preventing those
who have illegally entered or are unlawfully present in the U.S. from
having valid identification documents.
States would still issue driver's licenses and identification cards
and would control their own driver database.
closing asylum loopholes
The 9-11 Commission's staff report on ``9-11 and Terrorist Travel''
found that ``a number of terrorists . . . abused the asylum system''.
Examples of Terrorists Abusing Our Asylum Laws:
The ``Blind Sheik'', Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, led a plot to bomb New
York City landmarks. Rahman used an asylum application to avoid
deportation to Egypt after all other means of remaining in the U.S.
failed.
The 9/11 Commission staff report noted than an immigration judge held
a hearing on Rahman's asylum claim weeks before his followers bombed
the WorId Trade Center.
During the Republican Convention last August, an illegal alien from
Pakistan was picked up and arrested for attempting to bomb the Herald
Square subway station and plotting to bomb the Verrazano Narrows
bridge. He was quoted as saying that ``I want at least 1,000 to 2,000
to die in one day.'' The alien had applied for asylum.
A number of courts, specifically the 9th Circuit Court has severely
undermined current authorities by limiting the factors that judges can
consider when assessing the credibility of an alien seeking asylum.
This impairment encourages asylum fraud.
The REAL ID Act would strengthen judges' ability to determine whether
the asylum seeker is truthful. This provision codifies the factors
immigration judges use to assess credibility and prevents the 9th
Circuit from further undermining our national security.
defending borders
In 1996 Congress approved building the 14 mile long San Diego Border
Fence on the Mexico-U.S. border, right next to a major U.S. Navy base.
The San Diego Sector covers an area of more than 7,000 square miles
and contains 66 linear miles of international border with Mexico.
Directly to the south of the San Diego Sector area of responsibility
lie the Mexican cities of Tijuana and Tecate, which have a combined
population of more than two million.
For decades, this area had been the preferred corridor for entry into
the United States by unknown or undocumented persons due to the highly
populated cities north and south of the border, as well as relatively
quick access to national transportation hubs such as LAX.
Construction of the fence was halted when radical environmentalists
claimed that the area was a habitat of a rare bird. As a result, eight
years later, the fence remains incomplete and is an opportunity for
aliens to cross the border illegally.
This incomplete fence allows border security gaps to remain open. We
must close these gaps because they remain a threat to our national
security.
The REAL ID Act will require the completion of this important
security fence.
strengthening deportation laws
Under current immigration laws, prohibitions on some terrorist-
related activities only apply to aliens who are trying to enter the
U.S., but not to those who already reside within our borders.
Therefore, if an alien seeking a visa has been found to participate in
certain terrorist-related activity, he/she is prohibited from entering
the U.S. But if an alien is found to have participated in the same
terrorist activity in the U.S., he/she may not be deportable.
The REAL ID Act would finally make the laws consistent by providing
that all terrorist-related offenses and making aliens inadmissible
which would also be grounds for their deportation.
The REAL ID Act provides that any alien contributing funds to a
terrorist organization would be deportable.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________